Give an actual set criteria instead of very vague descriptions like "effective grappling and octagon control" pretty damn sure you can effectively grapple from the bottom. I.e you don't win a fight just by maintaining top control and dodging subs. (See mighty mouse vs Miguel torres)

The lack of specific criteria allows fights that are similar (ex: Diaz/condit and guida/Maynard (just one example)) to be scored differently and contradict each other in what it takes to win the fight.

When the scoring is too open to interpretation and none of the judges are on the same page... You're gonna have a bad time...

I'm with ChokeEmOut and OGT, the first problem is the scoring system and criteria.

As one of many examples, if a fighter feels the round is close scoring-wise or he's losing he can just shoot for a late TD attempt with no real downside (unless, obviously, he's T/KOed during the attempt). If he gets it, it may steal him the round. If he fails he doesn't get credit - except maybe for aggression - but no credit is given to his opponent either.

Personally, I'd like to see the scoring geared far more towards significant strikes, submission attempts and real aggression. By real agression I mean a fighter who is clearly trying to end the fight - not just jabbing, throwing mild leg kicks, controlling position on the ground or pressing his opponent against the fence.

A TD should not score *any* points unless there is clear control after the successful takedown AND the fighter clearly is positioning for submission attempts and/or GnP.

In other words, overall, fighters that show they are trying to finish the fight, not just score points, should get the most credit on the score sheets.

OGT - Give an actual set criteria instead of very vague descriptions like "effective grappling and octagon control" pretty damn sure you can effectively grapple from the bottom. I.e you don't win a fight just by maintaining top control and dodging subs. (See mighty mouse vs Miguel torres)

The lack of specific criteria allows fights that are similar (ex: Diaz/condit and guida/Maynard (just one example)) to be scored differently and contradict each other in what it takes to win the fight.

When the scoring is too open to interpretation and none of the judges are on the same page... You're gonna have a bad time...

I tend to use 5 categories for judging: striking, grappling, damage, ring/cage control, and aggression/offensive output (aka "working to finish the fight"). While I truly believe a Pride-style aggregate judging system to be ideal (whole fight rather than round by round), I've been working on something that might lend itself to better clarity and uniformity in judging rounds individually.

My suggestion - for each of those 5 categories make 1 point available in each round; resulting in a total of 5 points up for grabs per round. Think of it - NO DRAW ROUNDS!

Individually, these are easily viewed categories. It's easy to see who was the better striker and grappler in a contest. It's easy to tell who did the most damage. It's easy to tell who is working more for a finish, and who's working for survival or a decision. It's easy to tell who is staying in their preferred fight zone (feet or ground).

What's NOT easy...is fitting all that info into a 10pt system. Judges are ALREADY using this type of criteria, but when it comes time to translate this into a 10pt system...things become more gray than black and white. I think the translation of this info into the 10pt system is where we are going wrong.

---------------------------------------

A quick breakdown -

Striking - includes effective offense (attacking) and defense (blocking/checking) while standing or grounded. Clean technique is to be weighted more than wild strikes. 10 good jabs > 2 haymakers regardless of damage because damage inflicted is scored elsewhere.

Grappling - includes TDs, TD defense, sub attempts and defense, as well as clinch work. Knees and punches from the clinch are to be scored under 'striking', so the grappling point includes ONLY what can be considered grappling. This way, if a fighter mounts his opponent several times, but lands no strikes, he is still rewarded for the grappling dominance.

Control - includes both the control of the space (ring/cage) and where the fight goes (standing/ground). TD & TD defense are scored in 'grappling', so this will ONLY be used to score who stays in their preferred area. If there are no TD attempts, this pt would go to whoever controlled the center best/longer.

Aggression/Offensive output - working to inflict damage and/or finish with strikes or sub attempts. Counter-strikers may not often get this pt, but guys trying to eek out late rounds would lose this pt if they weren't engaging (preventing the 'preserve the win' mentality).

Damage - includes cuts, abrasions, facial swelling, opponent fatigue and flash knockdowns. This is to be used on a round by round basis rather than accrued damage. A broken nose in the 1st round will still be bleeding in the 2nd round...but if the bleeder opens a new cut on his opponent in 2nd, he should get the pt for the new damage in that round.

I think there need to be far more draws in mma. I can think of maybe two or three draws I've seen in the ufc in the past 5 years and that's crazy considering how many easily could've been.

I think there is too much pressure on judges to pick a winner for the sake of there being a winner rather than having a definitive decision and it would be beneficial to choose a draw in those situations because people will debate the decision no matter what in those cases.

Maybe there could be something called like an "indecisive draw" where neither person really put a decisive stamp on the fight and it's considered a draw rather than pick a winner with a blindfold on basically. Just my opinion.

OGT - Give an actual set criteria instead of very vague descriptions like "effective grappling and octagon control" pretty damn sure you can effectively grapple from the bottom. I.e you don't win a fight just by maintaining top control and dodging subs. (See mighty mouse vs Miguel torres)

The lack of specific criteria allows fights that are similar (ex: Diaz/condit and guida/Maynard (just one example)) to be scored differently and contradict each other in what it takes to win the fight.

When the scoring is too open to interpretation and none of the judges are on the same page... You're gonna have a bad time...

Great post

Thanks brotha, wish athletic commissions or people who can make it happen would read these threads, I think this great sport could be a lot better

kevsh - I'm with ChokeEmOut and OGT, the first problem is the scoring system and criteria.

As one of many examples, if a fighter feels the round is close scoring-wise or he's losing he can just shoot for a late TD attempt with no real downside (unless, obviously, he's T/KOed during the attempt). If he gets it, it may steal him the round. If he fails he doesn't get credit - except maybe for aggression - but no credit is given to his opponent either.

Personally, I'd like to see the scoring geared far more towards significant strikes, submission attempts and real aggression. By real agression I mean a fighter who is clearly trying to end the fight - not just jabbing, throwing mild leg kicks, controlling position on the ground or pressing his opponent against the fence.

A TD should not score *any* points unless there is clear control after the successful takedown AND the fighter clearly is positioning for submission attempts and/or GnP.

In other words, overall, fighters that show they are trying to finish the fight, not just score points, should get the most credit on the score sheets.

I tend to use 5 categories for judging: striking, grappling, damage, ring/cage control, and aggression/offensive output (aka "working to finish the fight"). While I truly believe a Pride-style aggregate judging system to be ideal (whole fight rather than round by round), I've been working on something that might lend itself to better clarity and uniformity in judging rounds individually.

My suggestion - for each of those 5 categories make 1 point available in each round; resulting in a total of 5 points up for grabs per round. Think of it - NO DRAW ROUNDS!

Individually, these are easily viewed categories. It's easy to see who was the better striker and grappler in a contest. It's easy to tell who did the most damage. It's easy to tell who is working more for a finish, and who's working for survival or a decision. It's easy to tell who is staying in their preferred fight zone (feet or ground).

What's NOT easy...is fitting all that info into a 10pt system. Judges are ALREADY using this type of criteria, but when it comes time to translate this into a 10pt system...things become more gray than black and white. I think the translation of this info into the 10pt system is where we are going wrong.

---------------------------------------

A quick breakdown -

Striking - includes effective offense (attacking) and defense (blocking/checking) while standing or grounded. Clean technique is to be weighted more than wild strikes. 10 good jabs > 2 haymakers regardless of damage because damage inflicted is scored elsewhere.

Grappling - includes TDs, TD defense, sub attempts and defense, as well as clinch work. Knees and punches from the clinch are to be scored under 'striking', so the grappling point includes ONLY what can be considered grappling. This way, if a fighter mounts his opponent several times, but lands no strikes, he is still rewarded for the grappling dominance.

Control - includes both the control of the space (ring/cage) and where the fight goes (standing/ground). TD & TD defense are scored in 'grappling', so this will ONLY be used to score who stays in their preferred area. If there are no TD attempts, this pt would go to whoever controlled the center best/longer.

Aggression/Offensive output - working to inflict damage and/or finish with strikes or sub attempts. Counter-strikers may not often get this pt, but guys trying to eek out late rounds would lose this pt if they weren't engaging (preventing the 'preserve the win' mentality).

Damage - includes cuts, abrasions, facial swelling, opponent fatigue and flash knockdowns. This is to be used on a round by round basis rather than accrued damage. A broken nose in the 1st round will still be bleeding in the 2nd round...but if the bleeder opens a new cut on his opponent in 2nd, he should get the pt for the new damage in that round.

----------------------------------

I like your ideas, only part I had a problem with was the damage section (as someone who cuts fuckin ridiculously easily) but I understand the need for damage to be scored and agree to a certain extent.

In a perfect world this format would be nice, it would take a total revamp of the sport to make this happen and it would make scoring a lot more specific. Bottom line is as long as the judges are ignorant to certain aspects of the game then you'll still see inconsistent scoring IMO.

If they ever do decide to do a complete overhaul this would be a nice starting point.

As far as the 'damage' category is concerned...damage is the whole point of MMA. Inflict as much as you can until your opponent cannot/will not fight back, right? Given that, don't you think that scoring damage in a fight that goes the distance is not just a good idea...but a necessity?

None of this controversy over 10-8 or 10-10 rounds. If you got your ass kicked in the last round after winning the first 2 it's up to the judges to say if you won the fight.

Will there still be bad decisions? Absolutely. But far fewer IMO, and more importantly there will be less of the "round winning" strategies because you could always squeak by in the 1st 2 with LnP or wall n stall and then lose the whole fight in the 3rd if the other guy lands a few big shots. Vera/Couture is a perfect example of this. No way would any judge give Couture that fight if the fight was scored as a whole.

As far as the 'damage' category is concerned...damage is the whole point of MMA. Inflict as much as you can until your opponent cannot/will not fight back, right? Given that, don't you think that scoring damage in a fight that goes the distance is not just a good idea...but a necessity?

No, maybe I didn't go into enough detail there. I was basically trying to say some cut easier than others (ex: Diaz cuts on the regular (if its an actual fight) and people like BJ almost never show damage on their face. JDS is another off the top of my head) I think damage goes beyond what you can see on someone's face.

I think kampmann lost to Diego because of his bloody face, but most think martin won that fight. All I was trying to say was that by judging cuts (sometimes) you are getting into a gray area that doesn't necessarily reflect how the fight went, thus that should be taken into consideration when scoring the fight.

no sweat, my descriptions were vague. The damage category is intended to go beyond just cuts and shit. It is intended to quantify the accrued offensive output of a fighter.

Damage could be considered anything that changes a fighter's pace, movement, stamina, etc. Couture used to wear guys out with his greco clinch work. Aldo demolishes legs, slowing his opponents down. Cuts aside, there is plenty to judge damage on.

It is also intended to allow the striking category to be independent of how damaging the strikes are; basically, to negate the question "which scores higher - 10 jabs or a heavy haymaker that wobbles someone?". Well, using this system, the fighter that lands the most strikes wins the striking point, while the fighter that hit harder (and/or did more damage) wins the damage point.

I've always thought the 10pt must system was flawed because the loser gets 8 or 9 points whether they earned it or not.

This 5pt system also allows a lopsided round to score 5-0 or 4-1, while a close round could score 3-2. 3-2 is a recoverable score, 4-1 is much harder to recover and would incite harder work toward a finish. This is in stark contrast to a close 10-9, and a not-so close 10-9, evening out a fight despite one fighter clearly having a bigger advantage in the round that he/she won.

IMO this is basically like judging the fight as a whole anyway, because by the end of the third round, each fighter is given credit for the aspects they were better at throughout the bout.

UGCTT_LastCall - no sweat, my descriptions were vague. The damage category is intended to go beyond just cuts and shit. It is intended to quantify the accrued offensive output of a fighter.

Damage could be considered anything that changes a fighter's pace, movement, stamina, etc. Couture used to wear guys out with his greco clinch work. Aldo demolishes legs, slowing his opponents down. Cuts aside, there is plenty to judge damage on.

It is also intended to allow the striking category to be independent of how damaging the strikes are; basically, to negate the question "which scores higher - 10 jabs or a heavy haymaker that wobbles someone?". Well, using this system, the fighter that lands the most strikes wins the striking point, while the fighter that hit harder (and/or did more damage) wins the damage point.

I've always thought the 10pt must system was flawed because the loser gets 8 or 9 points whether they earned it or not.

This 5pt system also allows a lopsided round to score 5-0 or 4-1, while a close round could score 3-2. 3-2 is a recoverable score, 4-1 is much harder to recover and would incite harder work toward a finish. This is in stark contrast to a close 10-9, and a not-so close 10-9, evening out a fight despite one fighter clearly having a bigger advantage in the round that he/she won.

IMO this is basically like judging the fight as a whole anyway, because by the end of the third round, each fighter is given credit for the aspects they were better at throughout the bout.

Sounds like we are on the same page then.

I too hate the 10 point must system and agree that works well I'm boxing but doesn't translate well to mma since you can basically fuck up one round and only be a point behind.

I like your idea with the points by category and whatnot, but I can forsee a few flaws. Like what if a round is basically a boxing match, no one is the "aggressor" and there is no grappling at all, where do those points go? Or are they simply not awarded? What if there is 1 takedown each (equal grappling, or equal anything for that matter) how is that scored.

Reply Post

“This is the official website of the Mixed Martial Arts llc. Commercial
reproduction, distribution or transmission of any part or parts of this website
or any information contained therein by any means whatsoever without the prior
written permission is not permitted.”